Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg likes the Indian Health Care Improvement Act and other ingredients of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, aka “Obamacare.” Why, she asked toward the end of three days of hearings, shouldn’t the court keep the good stuff in Obamacare and just dump the unconstitutional bits?

White House oversight of regulatory policymaking is a legitimate and essential means for presidents to pursue their policy objectives.

Although the past thirty years of originalist scholarship have produced remarkable gains in certain areas of law, much of the Constitution remains to be recovered.

Liberals typically erupt in outrage if you suggest they don’t respect or understand the Constitution, let alone defend it.  But then they let slip that in fact they really don’t respect or understand the Constitution.

By next year, about two-thirds of American physicians will be working as salaried employees of large groups and hospitals. This movement has been underway for years. Over the last decade, the number of independent physicians was falling by about 2% a year. But these trends are now accelerating. 

The conclusion I draw from Walmart v. Dukes is that Ginsburg thinks the only fair way to run a large organization is the way government runs civil service. Anyone with experience in the real world can tell you that an organization run this way wouldn't be as efficient or do as good a job of satisfying consumers' wants.

The dirty little secret of American healthcare is that the mandate wouldn’t save taxpayers a dime. Why? Because the tax subsidies for people with health insurance are bigger than the unpaid medical bills left behind by the uninsured.

If the individual mandate is upheld, Americans will have suffered a loss of liberty from which there will be no turning back.